Key risk factors and adverse outcomes in metachronous vertebral osteomyelitis following periprosthetic joint infection: A 5-year retrospective study.

Purpose: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a leading cause of joint arthroplasty failure, potentially leading to critical complications like vertebral osteomyelitis (VO). The factors contributing to VO after PJI and the outcomes for these patients are not well understood. Our study aims to (1) identify risk factors for VO following PJI and (2) assess the clinical outcomes in these cases. Methods: We included PJI patients treated surgically at our centre from January 2006 to December 2020, excluding those with simultaneous VO post-PJI. Our focus was on patients with VO occurring after PJI, monitored for at least 5 years. Analysis included patient comorbidities, PJI treatment approaches, pathogen identification and clinical outcomes. Results: Of 1701 PJI cases, 21 (1.23%) developed VO. Key risk factors for VO post-PJI were identified: systemic inflammatory response syndrome, substance misuse, polymicrobial infection and undergoing at least three stages of resection arthroplasty (odds ratios: 1.86, 54.28, 52.33 and 31.88, respectively). Adverse outcomes were noted in VO patients, with recurrent VO in 6/21 and repeated PJIs in 18/21 cases. Conclusions: Patients with PJI, especially those with certain risk factors, have an increased likelihood of developing VO and encountering negative outcomes. The potential role of bacteremia in the development of VO after PJI needs further exploration. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Higher pelvic incidence values are a risk factor for trans-iliac trans-sacral screw malposition in sacroiliac complex fracture treatment.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous iliosacral (IS) screw fixation and trans-iliac trans-sacral (TITS) screw fixation are clinically effective treatments of posterior pelvic sacroiliac fractures. In order to accurately assess the sacrum position relative to the pelvis, pelvic incidence (PI) is a commonly utilized radiographic parameter in sagittal view. This study aimed to investigate and compare the surgical outcomes and radiographic parameters of IS or TITS screw fixations for the treatment of posterior sacroiliac complex fractures with different PI values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data on patients with posterior pelvic sacroiliac fractures who underwent percutaneous IS or TITS screw fixations, or both, at a single level I trauma center between January 2017 and June 2020 were reviewed. We documented the patient characteristics and fracture types, reviewed surgical records, and measured the radiographic parameters via plain films and multi-planar computed tomography (mpCT) images. Radiographic variations in PI, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, sacral dysmorphism, pelvic ring reduction quality, screw deviation angles, screw malposition grading, and iatrogenic complications were documented and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were included, and 65 IS and 70 TITS screws were accounted for. Patients were divided into two groups according to screw fixation method and further divided into four sub-groups based on baseline PI values. The PI cutoff values were 49.85° and 48.05° in the IS and TITS screw groups, respectively, according to receiver operating characteristic analysis and Youden's J statistic. Smaller PI values were significantly correlated with sacral dysmorphism (p = 0.027 and 0.003 in the IS and TITS screw groups, respectively). Patients with larger PI values were at a significantly increased risk of screw malposition in the TITS screw group (p = 0.049), with no association in the IS screw group. Logistic regression confirmed that a larger PI value was a significant risk factor for screw malposition in the TITS screw group (p = 0.010). The post-operative outcomes improved from poor/fair (at 6 months) to good/average (at 12 months) based on the Postel Merle d'Aubigné and Majeed scores, with no significant differences between subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Both percutaneous IS and TITS screw fixations are safe and effective treatments for posterior pelvic sacroiliac fractures. Due to the higher risk of screw malposition in patients with larger PI values, it is crucial to identify potential patients at risk when performing TITS screw fixation surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Cement augmentation for treatment of high to mid-thoracic osteoporotic compression fractures, high-viscosity cement percutaneous vertebroplasty versus balloon kyphoplasty.

Whilst the majority of the literature suggests that balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) can relieve pain associated with vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), evidence of high-viscosity cement (HVC) vertebroplasty (VP) or low viscosity cement (LVC) BKP for the treatment of VCFs at the levels of high and mid-thoracic vertebrae remains limited. The purpose of this study was to identify the different outcomes between HVC VP and LVC BKP used to repair high (T4-6) and mid (T7-9)-thoracic VCFs. A total of 114 patients with painful collapsed single-level vertebrae at high to mid-thoracic level who had undergone HVC VP or LVC BKP at a single tertiary medical center was reviewed retrospectively. All patients were divided into the HVC VP group (n = 72) and the LVC BKP group (n = 42). Clinical outcomes including demographic data and visual analogue scale (VAS) were compared. Radiographic data were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, and at final follow-up. More volume (ml) of cement injection was seen in the LVC BKP group (4.40 vs. 3.66, p < 0.001). The operation time (minutes) of the HVC VP group was significantly less than that of the LVC BKP group (33.34 vs. 39.05, p = 0.011). Leakage rate of cement was also fewer in the HVC VP group (26/72 vs. 27/42, p = 0.004). Compared with preoperative data, the VAS was improved after surgery in both groups. The LVC BKP group corrected more middle vertebral body height and local kyphosis angle than the HVC VP group. The outcomes of LVC BKP were not superior to that of HVC VP. HVC VP might be a good alternative to LVC BKP in the treatment of osteoporotic VCFs in high to mid-thoracic spine.

High viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty versus low viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty in the treatment of mid-high thoracic vertebral compression fractures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: As science and technology have advanced, novel bone cements with numerous formulated ingredients have greatly evolved and been commercialized for vertebroplasty. Recently, viscosity has been a focus to achieve better clinical outcomes and fewer complications. Meanwhile, the experience in the treatment of mid (T7-9) to high (T4-6) thoracic vertebral compression fractures is limited. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify the different outcomes between high-viscosity bone cement (HVBC) and low-viscosity bone cement (LVBC) used to repair mid (T7-9)- and high (T4-6)- thoracic vertebral compression fractures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study was a single-center, retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: A consecutive series of 107 patients with a total of 144 vertebrae was included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The anterior vertebral height (AVH), middle vertebral height (MVH), posterior vertebral height (PVH), local kyphotic angle (KA), Cobb angle (CA), and other associated parameters were evaluated radiologically at several time points-preoperative, surgery day 0, postoperative day 1, and 6-month follow-up. Pain evaluation was assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) before and 6 months after the procedure. METHODS: The patients were divided into two groups according to the viscosity of the bone cement used, and plain film and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the vertebrae were used to calculate parameters. The patient characteristics; bone cement brand; changes in AVH, MVH, PVH, KA, CA, and VAS; and complications of each patient were recorded and then analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups showed increased vertebral body height, corrected KA, and CA after vertebroplasty. There were no significant differences between the HVBC and LVBC groups (ΔAVH: 2.19±2.60 vs. 2.48±3.09, p=.555; ΔMVH: 1.25±3.15 vs. 1.89±2.58, p=.192; ΔKA: -5.46±4.58 vs -5.37±4.47, p=.908; and ΔCA: -4.22±4.23 vs. -4.56±5.17, p=.679). There were significant preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to follow-up changes in AVH (HVBC, p=.012 and .046, respectively; LVBC, p=.001 and .015, respectively); a significant preoperative to postoperative change in MVH (HVBC, p=.045; LVBC, p=.001); and significant preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to follow-up changes in KA and CA (KA: HVBC, p=0.000 and .003, respectively; LVBC, p=.000 and .000, respectively; CA: HVBC, p=.017 and .047, respectively; LVBC, p=.006 and .034, respectively). The volume of cement injected was significantly higher with HVBC (3.66±1.36 vs. 3.11±1.53, p=.024), and the use of HVBC was associated fewer cases with cement leakage (26 vs. 45, p=.002). Furthermore, there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of adjacent fracture. Both groups showed an improved VAS score at follow-up, with statistically greater improvement in the HVBC group (2.40±1.53 vs. 3.07±1.69, p=.014). Moreover, significantly fewer patients with a VAS score ≥ 3 were found in the HVBC group (22 vs. 39, p=.004) CONCLUSIONS: HVBC and LVBC are safe and effective to treat mid-to-high level thoracic vertebral compression fractures. Compared with LVBC, HVBC shows less cement leakage, a greater injection volume, and better postoperative pain relief.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Debridement and Fusion with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation for Spondylodiscitis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody debridement and fusion (MiTLIDF) with percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation (PSI) is a less invasive treatment for lumbar spondylodiscitis. METHODS: Patients with single-level lumbar spondylodiscitis were surgically treated by interbody debridement and fusion through an anterior or transforaminal approach combined with open or percutaneous PSI (group A: anterior debridement and interbody fusion with open posterior PSI; group B: transforaminal lumbar interbody debridement and fusion [TLIDF] with open posterior PSI; group C: anterior debridement and interbody fusion with percutaneous PSI; group D: MiTLIDF with percutaneous PSI). Perioperative data, fusion status, infection-free survival, and clinical outcome measurements were compared among the 4 surgical groups. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in this study. TLIDF was associated with shorter operative time when compared with the anterior approach (group A: 302.8 ± 59.9 minutes; group B: 209.2 ± 31.0 minutes; group C: 260.6 ± 62.5 minutes; group D: 207.1 ± 33.6 minutes; P < 0.001). Percutaneous PSI resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (group A: 907.5 ± 253.7 mL; group B: 859.4 ± 201.2 mL; group C: 532.9 ± 193.7 mL; group D: 399.1 ± 84.3 mL) and reduced immediate postoperative pain (group A: 5.5 ± 0.9; group B: 4.9 ± 0.9; group C: 3.9 ± 0.7; group D: 3.2 ± 0.7) than open PSI (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of overall infection-free survival (P = 0.936). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated MiTLIDF with percutaneous PSI is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar spondylodiscitis while incurring no adverse effects in terms of fusion rate, functional recovery, and infection eradication.